Congressmen Worry New Pandemic Treaty May Silence Critics

By | February 8, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. February 9 (C-Fam) Members of Congress and civil society leaders met the press this week to warn the country about a pandemic treaty the World Health Organization is drafting (WHO). Their concerns include the treaty’s implications for U.S. sovereignty and also the silencing of critics.

“Censorship is at the very heart of this entire document,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, warning that the treaty would be used to stifle dissent.

“The draft agreement presents the reader with this Orwellian concept of “infodemic,” said Perkins, pointing out the draft’s mandate that countries “combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.”

Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) agreed and wondered if this standard should be applied retroactively to the WHO for spreading Chinese misinformation about COVID-19 at the start of that pandemic.

Congressman Smith also worried that “Far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions have been asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.”

When considering further funding around the treaty, Smith recalled the WHO’s insistence that abortion is an essential health service during the COVID-19 pandemic.  He mentioned the WHO’s proposal to enter into a formal relationship with the radical pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which already collaborates with the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Congressman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), a medical doctor, lamented that the WHO is “not the preeminent global health institution it once was” and criticizing the agency’s politicization of science.

Several participants noted the lack of mechanisms for transparency and oversight.  They spoke about the ways the WHO echoed the talking points of the Chinese government early in the COVID-19 pandemic, China’s continued lack of transparency regarding the origins of COVID-19, and the fact that the WHO director-general was strongly supported by China in his leadership bid.

Smith thanked C-Fam, the publisher of the Friday Fax, both for its work in raising the alarm about the pandemic treaty and for circulating a letter urging the WHO not to enter into a formal arrangement with CRR.  That decision has been postponed until May, which is also when the final pandemic preparedness treaty is supposed to be completed.

The treaty’s rushed timeline was also an area of concern raised at the press conference.  The draft treaty contains reference to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), with which it must be consistent, yet they are also undergoing an amendment process.  Reggie Littlejohn, speaking for the Anti-Globalist Alliance, warned that approving a final treaty text without first having the finalized IHRs would be like writing a “blank check.”

The treaty would have important implications for national sovereignty.  Littlejohn mentioned the WHO’s reluctance to use the word “treaty” when discussing the proposed accord, and multiple speakers called on the U.S. to insist on a ratification process requiring approval in the Senate by a two-thirds majority and not by an action of the executive branch alone.

Further concerns for sovereignty were also raised.  The U.S. and other countries frequently issue reservations when ratifying treaties, but the draft pandemic treaty includes language precluding reservations.  Nevertheless, the draft would allow a conference of states party to the treaty to amend it without the requirement of renewed ratification.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. of the Center for Security Policy pointed out that the federal government has no constitutional responsibility for global health, but such powers are held by individual U.S. states.  He warned that by ratifying the treaty, the federal government stands to “give away powers it doesn’t actually exercise.”

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter